AGPL
-
It continues to surprise me how little some people think about the licensing of the works that they produce, or about what they really want to get from the rest of the world
Any specific WTF to share? :)
I'm currently writing GPL stuff for work [...] I'm not hugely happy about the license, but it's just work-for-hire
If you make it as part of the job, doesn't it (an thus the licensing decision) belong to the employer?
(so the license is not your problem anyway)
-
@Adynathos said in AGPL:
If you make it as part of the job, doesn't it (an thus the licensing decision) belong to the employer?
Yes.
(so the license is not your problem anyway)
The story at my employer is much more complex than that. If it was new work and not highly constrained by what went before, they're pretty flexible (except if it is something that they're dead-set on commercialising; that's happened once with some of my code, and I was very happy to see it gone). There's no overarching policy on the matter (since software isn't regarded as a primary outcome, rightly or wrongly).
-
@Polygeekery yep, Richard Stallman has an account on here.
-
@Polygeekery said in AGPL:
@antiquarian said in AGPL:
To my knowledge, working with GPL licenses pretty much means that your program is also GPL or similar anyway. It's not really meant for anyone interested in proprietary software.
Exactly. If you read the GNU Manifesto, it's clear that the purpose wasn't to get rid of proprietary software; it was to make sure there would always be free-software alternatives.
Too bad that is a JPG file, so Stallman would refuse to download it anyway
-
@Polygeekery said in AGPL:
yep, Richard Stallman has an account on here.
-
@dcon What are the practical differences between MIT and WTFPL?
The MIT License allows you do pretty much anything with the software as long as you credit the author (i.e. include the license). The WTFPL allows you to do anything with the software, without having to credit the author.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is just my interpretation.